The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

unknown=false, as only know is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 72158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




reality is unbelieved

unknown is alien, alien is false



The resolution is: "unknown=false, as only know is true"

Let's define a few words:

"Unknown" - : not known, not well-known : not famous [1].

"False" - not real or genuine : not true or accurate; especially : deliberately untrue : done or said to fool or deceive someone: based on mistaken ideas. [2].

We can rephrase the resolution, to be: What isn't known, must not be real, or genuine, or true.

BoP will be on Pro, although I will provide arguments as well.

Constructive Arguments:

1.) I invite everyone to partake on a journey with me into our solar system. Let's start at a resent time period. In fact, we will start only a couple months ago, January 2015. Almost feels like yesterday. Astronomers discovered eight new planets in outer space. Take a look at this excerpt from this article. [3].

"Astronomers on Tuesday announced the discovery of eight new potentially habitable planets beyond our solar system, including two that are the most similar to Earth of any discovered so far.

First identified by NASA's Kepler mission, all eight of the planets are located in their distant suns' "habitable zone," or the region where liquid water might exist on the surface of an orbiting planet. Only two of them, however, are likely made of rock, like Earth."

In those two paragraphs we see that astronomers "discovered" these new planets. Shall I define "discover?"

"Discover" - ": to see, find, or become aware of (something) for the first time. [4].

Until Jan. 2015, these planets were unknown, nobody knew of their existence. That is the unknown aspect of the resolution. Then come Jan 2015, these planets were discovered (found, to become aware of). These plates are known, fact, and real, true and genuine: "known." At a point in time these planets were unknown, which means they would be false, but they were discovered, which means they are true, and were true, even when they were unknown to us.


We have seen that unknown doesn't equal false, so the resolution is negated. I have adequately falsified the resolution. Pro must disprove this argument that stands, and provide his own arguments. Also please consider when voting the numerous and constant lack of punctuation and grammar in Pro's entries. Thank you.


Debate Round No. 1


unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true?

only know is true, and i know i dont know unknown

you would have to argue aliens are true to say unknown is true


"unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true?"

Pro's point is that unless you physically, and personally experience something, it isn't true or real. Scientists have discovered and proven the existence of space and planets, it is fact, even though the majority of all humans have never experienced it, it is till a fact. For this point by pro, he has to actually prove the universes non-existence, otherwise it is a ludicrous assertion.

This little point by Pro can be disprove again for a second time with another example. I, personally, have never been to Antarctica. Does this mean that Antarctica doesn't exists, or isn't true? No. It is a fact that Antarctica exists, and people have been there and given accounts of it, even though I personally have never physically experienced it, it is true.

"only know is true, and I know I don't know unknown"

BoP is on Pro, this is still only a resolution with no evidence or example for why this assertion is true.

"you would have to argue aliens are true to say unknown is true"

Aliens are irrelevant to the debate.


I have disproven the resolution a second time by showing Antarctica exists, despite lack of physical, personal experience of it.
This argument stands.

My original argument still stands as well.

Pro hasn't fulfilled BoP.

All arguments extended, please also consider the continuous lack of grammar and punctuation by Pro. Thank you, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


fact=memory of physical experience(knowledge)

belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it

i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now

lies exist, to me a star is a light in the night sky, and nothing beyond that..

i dont know bop, he might be a nice guy. unknown, being unknown, is not known.. and know is true, aliens are unknown, are aliens true and exist? aliens are lies, and lies exist, aliens are whatever i imagine them to be

aliens are unknown


fact=memory of physical experience(knowledge)"

"belief=be lie, as I have to imagine it"

Pro has given false definitions for these words, so let's use a dictionary:

"Fact" - something that actually exists; reality; truth. [1].

Fact is something that exists in reality. Fact does not rely on personal experience, nor knowledge of being true.

"Belief" - something believed; an opinion or conviction. [2].

Pro says that beliefs are a lie, since one has to imagine a belief. This isn't true because we have discovered that facts are not reliant on knowledge of themselves being a fact. Facts don't require personal experience to be true, which falsifies Pro's definitions of Fact, Belief and the whole resolution of this debate.


I needn't examine Pro's entry any further as I have already disproven the resolution for a third time.

My first argument of Kepler planets still stands, Pro hadn't refuted.

The second argument of Antarctica existing despite personal knowledge still stands.

Now the third argument has been displayed by defining fact, and showing it doesn't need personal or physical experience to be true.

All arguments stand and are extended. Please, yet again take note of the lack of citations and spelling and grammar of Pro. Thank you, please vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3


fact=past observation, subjective not objective(memory)


facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter

truth can only be in the past, now is true, you do not have knowledge of the future




know is the opposite of belief and knowledge, and future is the opposite of past

i dont know=i have to imagine it. i dont know is a true position, therfore belief is automaticly false, atheism and theism

just answer me this, did i just look at my dog? is that a fact


"fact=past observation, subjective not objective(memory)"

Fact can certianly be a past observation, but facts are not exclusive to past observation. Facts are not subjective. Gravity is a fact. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are fact. Fact is what is true and genuine, and doesn't require physical, personal experience for it to still be a fact.


We know that belief doesn't have evidence or proof yet, or not enough evidence or proof for it to a fact, but is possible for it to become fact. Belief=unknown, but unknown doesn't equal false. Thus by deductive reasoning: belief isn't automitically false just.

"I don't know=I have to imagine it. i don't know is a true position, therefore belief is automatically false, atheism and theism"

I don't know=unknown. That is correct, but unknown still has the probability of being fact, because truth isn't relative to our knowledge of it. Something being fact is separate from someone having knowledge of it being a fact. Each time something is discovered, it mean that it was unknown before discovery, but it was still a fact before discovery. Therefore the resolution has been negated for a fourth time.

"just answer me this, did I just look my dog? is that a fact"

I do not know if you looked at your dog. So that means it is unknown. Could you have looked at your dog? Yes you could've. So looking at the dog is (unknown) for me, but it could very well be possible for you to have looked at your dog (fact). Unknown has the possability of being false, or fact. Therefore resolution negated for a fitfth time.


All three arguments still stand, and are extended. Again, Pro fails to source anything and lacks spelling, punctuation, and proper grammar. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4


i have memory of gravity, but gravity is continiously true, gravity is not subjective........ not of the mind


now is true, now is matter

belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, at the point of anything being true its becasue i know. belief is false, as everything has 2 sides

only know is true, unless i dont know, i dont know is a position i know

probable=pro babble

if i meet an alien, it is not an unknown, it was unknown when i had to imagine it

as to the dog thing... i dont have a dog, so it is not fact, but am i lying about not having a dog?

facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, imagination goes to future, belief


"belief is false by default, as I don't know is true, at the point of anything being true it's because I know. belief is false, as everything has 2 sides"

Belief is not false by default. If it's a belief, it is unknown. Unknown is uncertain of, or unaware of. You can be unaware of something, but that something can still exists, and exists is true and true is fact. So belief has the ability to be true and fact, which means it is not be default false.

"as to the dog thing... I don't have a dog, so it is not a fact, but am I lying about not having a dog?"

It's irrelivant whether you had the dog or not, it was just an examply. I'll use your second example as well. Do you have a dog? I, personally, don't know. I am uncertain, it is an unknown. There are two possibilities, you have a dog, or you don't. It is possible for the unknown (do you have a dog?) to be a fact ( yes you have a dog). Unknown is a belief, or uncertainty, but it could still be true despite uncertainty.

"facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, imagination goes to future, belief"

Pro says that anything beyond his own memory is false. Pro hasn't been to Jupiter, does Jupiter exist? Yes, Pro's assertion is false.


All three of previous arguments still stand and are extended. Yet again, take note of lack of spelling, punctuation, and grammar by Pro, as well as false definitions and lack of sourcing.

Thank you, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
at the point the aliens show up, you know that he was right
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
the thing it come Down to here is countries are false.. but if you have been to antarctica then thats your truth, your memories

yes, unknown is false, know is true

at the point the aliens showed up and you know that he was right, but they could have not shown up, he didnt know, until he knew
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
If that's your argument than you clearly lost the debate. I thought that maybe you were taking kind of like a Ren" Descartes standpoint arguing that perception does not mean truth. That argument might have some credibility. But if someone is standing on Antarctica and someone says, "there is an Antarctica", how is he wrong? If someone says there are no aliens, is that false because he doesn't actually know? If someone says there are aliens even though he has no proof and the next day aliens show up, was he wrong? If someone has a multiple choice question on a test A is the right answer, but he isn't sure what it is so he guesses A. Is he wrong?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
there was antarctica would be the truth, thats what you remember

memory is not a thing

physical experience is the opposite of memory
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
But even then your argument is invalid. If instead of saying there is an Antarctica you could say there was an Antarctica. Even if there is an Antarctica right now you would not be wrong as you are saying that there was and you would be right as there is was and mostly always was an Antarctica.

Technically everything is a memory. By the time that your brain processes and translates the information received what happened that you see actually happened hundredths of a second ago.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
you could sat that, i have been to antarctica so i know its truly there! but maybe antarctica blew up a second before you said that statement
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i think it comes from science, science claims their memories are your knowledge, its taught in school probably

notice what your actually saying, "that would Mean that NO thing, can be objective"... no

nothing is mental, something is physical, 0 and 1

facts are past observations, the past dosnt matter, now is matter
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
"the majority of all humans have never experienced it, it is till a fact"
"I, personally, have never been to Antarctica ... It is a fact that Antarctica exists"
Your argument is other people have seen it so it must be fact?

"fact=past observation, subjective not objective(memory)
Technechally everything is a memory or just an interpretation from the brain. That would mean nothing can be objective, including your thoughts right now or your argument or mine.

"Facts are not subjective"
Simply stating that they are not subjective is not an argument. The fact the they are subjective is a logical assumption.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I just can't decide is vi has a proper argument brewing in him somewhere. This one was not it. He consistently ignored cons arguments, just wandering off in unconnected points with no attempt to actually prove the resolution.

Conduct = Pro shows no respect for cons arguments, simply ignoring them.
S & G = Pro skips punctuation, and its often distracting trying to read his argument.
Argument =  Con had an argument.  Pro made bare assertion only
Sources = Con provided the only sources in the debate.